South Korea's parliament voted to impeach

[malaise]

The acting President for refusing to appoint the judges picked by parliament.

The Finance Minister is now the latest Acting President.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/27/south-korean-lawmakers-impeach-acting-president-han-duck-soo

South Korea’s parliament has voted to impeach the acting president, Han Duck-soo, plunging the country deeper into a political crisis that has caused policy deadlock and damaged its international reputation.

On Friday, the national assembly approved an impeachment motion introduced on Thursday by the main opposition party by a 192-0 vote. The chamber has 300 MPs, but members of the ruling People Power party (PPP) boycotted Friday’s vote.

Han took over as president after his predecessor, Yoon Suk Yeol, was impeached over his short-lived imposition of martial law on 3 December. The move triggered six hours of chaos that, for many older South Koreans, brought back memories of the country’s bloody transition from military rule to democracy in the 1980s.

[PeaceWave]

1. It's nice to know there's at least one functioning democracy left in the world...

Something for those of us in the United States to aspire to I guess.

[Igel]

2. So the court can hear the case against Yoon.

So there are two questions: Does the acting president actually have the authority. And if the court can hear the case, what's the problem.

The crucial bit of info is at the end:

The nine-member constitutional court has just under 180 days to reach a decision, which must have a two-thirds majority to stand. If it approves the impeachment against Yoon, South Koreans must elect a new president within 60 days.

The court’s composition is complicating the process, as it is currently short of three justices. It can vote on the impeachment motion with the six sitting justices, but a single dissenting would be enough to overturn the impeachment vote and reinstate Yoon.

The opposition really wants Yoon gone and a single no vote would return him to power.

I'm curious as to what the backstory is. Yoon was frustrated that his budgets weren't being passed. Did they try to work out a compromise? What was the sticking point? Would the opposition just say "no" as an act of pious virtue--sort of the "burn it down" mentality some in the US focused more on power than governance have spouted as a strategy come 1/21/25?

Dunno. (But also don't know that I much care. But what little I do know is that one group tends to be more accommodationist and really can't believe that the PRNK could ever be as bad as it's made out ... Coupled with the toxic idea that any peace has to be better than a war with the North. The other is more hardline.)